Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Herrod

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Herrod[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks reliable secondary sources. Two major contributors to the article are connected to the subject. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Massive COI. WP:NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and have someone who isn't closely connected to the subject write it. There are a few reliable sources: TechCrunch, The Register, Network World, Information Week, InfoWorld. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW BLOW if that's a thing. It needs blowing up and starting over. But that's not a delete. And the rest can go on WP:ANI I think this is unanimous> Neonchameleon (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a CV, rather than an encyclopædia article. But the commenters above should restrain themselves a little; it's a bit harsh calling for a BLP possibly written in good faith to be blown up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.